Advertisement

Psychologie en Gezondheid

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 186–195 | Cite as

De TOR-J: Tevredenheidlijst voor ouders van in (semi-)residentiële jeugdhulpverlening en GGZ behandelde adolescenten

  • Albert E. Boon
  • Sjouk B. B. de Boer
  • Anna M. de Haan
Meetinstrumenten

Abstract

Measurement of parents satisfaction with their child’s treatment in (semi) residential adolescent mental health care

When their children are admitted to (semi-)residential care parents have to transfer their parental role to professional health care workers. Existing Dutch instruments to measure the satisfaction of parents with the treatment of their child in mental health care, do not acknowledge this very important aspect. Therefore the Tevredenheidlijst Ouders Residentiële Jeugdhulpverlening (TOR-J) was developed to measure parent satisfaction focusing on three aspects of the residential treatment: ‘Transference of parental care’, ‘Treatment result’ and ‘Communication with the parents’. The instrument was tested in a residential (184 parents) and a semi residential (49 parents) setting. A 3-factor solution was found with 6 items loading on ‘Transference of parental care’, 4 items on ‘Treatment result’. The third factor contained 6 items of which 2 items were not initially written for the ‘Communication with the parents’ subscale. This result broadened the domain of the scale, therefore it was relabeled ‘Parent guidance’. Significant correlations were found between the TOR-J scale ‘Treatment results’ and the results of the client satisfaction scale that was administered to the adolescent patients.

Literatuur

  1. Arrindell, W.A., & Ettema, J.H.M. (2003). SCL-90. Symptom Checklist. Handleiding bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie-indicator. Lisse: Swets Test Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Boon, A.E., & Boer, S.B.B. de (2007). Drug usage as a threat to the stability of treatment outcome. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16, 79-86.Google Scholar
  3. Boon, A.E., & Colijn, S. (2001). Adolescents in residential psychiatric care: treatment outcome, social support and cultural background. Den Haag: Pasmans.Google Scholar
  4. Boon, A., & Haijer, Z. (2008). Orthopsychiatrie. Een behandeling voor lastige jonge psychiatrische patiënten. Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, 63, 41-49.Google Scholar
  5. Bransen, M., Wijngaarden, B. van, & Kok, I. (2003). De ontwikkeling van de GGZ Jeugdthermometer. Utrecht: Trimbos-instituut.Google Scholar
  6. Brey, H. de (1983). A cross-national validation of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire: the Dutch experience. Evaluation and Program Planning, 6, 395-400.Google Scholar
  7. Bruinsma, M., & Boon, A.E (1997). ‘Tevredenheidlijst ouders van De Fjord’. Interne publicatie, Bavo.Google Scholar
  8. Bruinsma, M., & Boon, A.E (2001). Orthopsychiatrie, (be)handelbare jongeren? Amsterdam: SWP.Google Scholar
  9. Fransen, J., & Jurrius, K. (2005). De C-toets getoetst. Ervaringen, ontwikkelingen en plannen rondom de C-toets. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Jeugdzorg, 9, 293-296.Google Scholar
  10. Pas, A. van der (1994). Handboek Methodische Ouderbegeleiding 1; Ouderbegeleiding als Methodiek. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker.Google Scholar
  11. Zoest, C. van (2002). Kwaliteitszorg voor non-profitorganisaties. Met succes overleven in een concurrerende markt. Soest: H. Nelissen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert E. Boon
    • 1
  • Sjouk B. B. de Boer
  • Anna M. de Haan
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations